Pay for it at gunpoint? Crying? You lose your argument with hyperbole.

 

The entire system of government is based on the idea that you can’t pay for something that is a common good on your own. I can’t pay for highways on my own, nor can agricultural counties afford some of the subsidies for new roads or 5g internet service on their own. We work together to make the state work as a whole.

 

That is Marxism, not freedom.  Marxism is unsustainable.  Crying about that won't change it either.  We have to learn to live in the real world.

 

Public investment is not Marxism. "Crying" and pretending that it's Marxism won't change that fact either. Learn what Marxism is.

What are everyone's thoughts on a rideshare use fee to help fill some of the rta financial gap?

 

http://www.cleveland.com/cuyahoga-county/index.ssf/2018/02/cuyahoga_county_asked_to_impose_fee_on_uber_and_lyft_ride-sharing_to_help_rta.html#incart_river_mobileshort_home

 

My first instinct is to hate this idea. At first glance it looks like a woeful public entity penalizing a private successful one. 

Marxism? You lose your argument with hyperbole.

And I'm just going to elaborate on Marxism. I assume that the insinuation is that this type of expenditure redistributes wealth and is therefore Marxist. Redistribution of wealth is not Marxism. All governments redistribute wealth with every penny they spend. Even a hardcore libertarian state has redistribution of wealth when they form police services. There are wealthier citizens subsidizing police services for poorer citizens. So how do we tell if something is Marxist? A couple of things come to mind: Marxism is a)rooted in class distinction or "class struggle" b)involves total government control of an economy and c)is revolutionary.

 

Federal spending on transit is none of the above.

What are everyone's thoughts on a rideshare use fee to help fill some of the rta financial gap?

 

http://www.cleveland.com/cuyahoga-county/index.ssf/2018/02/cuyahoga_county_asked_to_impose_fee_on_uber_and_lyft_ride-sharing_to_help_rta.html#incart_river_mobileshort_home

 

My first instinct is to hate this idea. At first glance it looks like a woeful public entity penalizing a private successful one. 

 

There are loads of external costs to society involved with private transportation though. Congestion, fossil fuel consumption, etc. To me these types of taxes are the best way to fund public transit. In NYC when you drive over the bridges into Manhattan and pay a toll, it goes to transit. Makes perfect sense. Due to overbuilding of road infrastructure, we might not have the congestion problems in Cleveland necessarily so you could make an argument against it there, but fundamentally it's sound.

I'm surprised Lyft, Uber and other rideshare companies are utilized so much that they can have any kind of financial impact to RTA with this tax. And for all the abstract additional expenses they incur, such as pollution and road use, they also provide major societal savings i.e. drunk driving, and consequences, reductions along with additional options for people to commute long distances downtown and spend their money at shows and restaurants.

 

Seems nickel and diming to me. The city and RTA would be better served collaborating with these companies rather than squeezing them.

Before crying that "it can't be done," could we pleeeeeeease consider that it is *already* being done in many places around the world, including city-states like Singapore where there is no Bumblefart County to pay?  Or that it was being done right here for about a century before the GI bill and suburbanization made transit less profitable? 

 

Lol at the suggestion that Bumblefart County is a net subsidy provider to metro america.

 

Lol at the suggestion that Bumblefart County is a net subsidy provider to metro america.

 

It's the other way around. I have often suggested, part tongue-in-cheek, that a fiscal moat be established around metropolitan areas so there is no sharing of tax revenues between rural/metro areas. I'm sure that rural areas would support this idea because they have the misconception that they're subsidizing cities. Once the moat is in place, rural folks will soon realize their mistake. The preservation of urban funding will help keep wealth in the cities but leave rural areas isolated, desperate and radicalized. That won't help cities or rural areas.

 

A similar diversion is occurring with transportation network companies like Uber and Lyft which artificially reduce their pricing and take losses that are covered by venture capitalists. This has hurt public transportation and it's time for transportation network companies to pay their fair share.

What are everyone's thoughts on a rideshare use fee to help fill some of the rta financial gap?

 

http://www.cleveland.com/cuyahoga-county/index.ssf/2018/02/cuyahoga_county_asked_to_impose_fee_on_uber_and_lyft_ride-sharing_to_help_rta.html#incart_river_mobileshort_home

 

My first instinct is to hate this idea. At first glance it looks like a woeful public entity penalizing a private successful one. 

 

There are loads of external costs to society involved with private transportation though. Congestion, fossil fuel consumption, etc. To me these types of taxes are the best way to fund public transit. In NYC when you drive over the bridges into Manhattan and pay a toll, it goes to transit. Makes perfect sense. Due to overbuilding of road infrastructure, we might not have the congestion problems in Cleveland necessarily so you could make an argument against it there, but fundamentally it's sound.

 

Agree. I'm not necessarily against fees on rideshare per say. I think they came in and were able to skirt around a lot of existing "costs" i.e. commercial licensing. But as mentioned above there seems to more logical funding sources to tap into first. You forgot to mention parking, that's another big one. I also really like the congestion fee idea (which would effect Uber as well) but realize it might be hard to do in Cleveland.

 

What are everyone's thoughts on a rideshare use fee to help fill some of the rta financial gap?

 

http://www.cleveland.com/cuyahoga-county/index.ssf/2018/02/cuyahoga_county_asked_to_impose_fee_on_uber_and_lyft_ride-sharing_to_help_rta.html#incart_river_mobileshort_home

 

The State of Ohio prohibits it. http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/4925

What are everyone's thoughts on a rideshare use fee to help fill some of the rta financial gap?

 

http://www.cleveland.com/cuyahoga-county/index.ssf/2018/02/cuyahoga_county_asked_to_impose_fee_on_uber_and_lyft_ride-sharing_to_help_rta.html#incart_river_mobileshort_home

 

Increasingly, at least in more enlightened places, rideshare will fill in the "last mile" connecting increasingly sparse but hopefully higher-frequency bus (edit:) and rail routes with homes and businesses beyond walking distance from those routes, but easily within a very short drive.  RTA should be COOPERATING with rideshare services, not seeking to tax them out of existence. 

 

I think this is a nice idea, but real world, at least in Cleveland, they are just going to use the rideshare for the whole trip. I don't see very many people using rideshare for last mile. Maybe if ourcity was a lot denser and auto traffic was difficult, but its the opposite.  *Second read maybe that's why you used "enlightened places"

What are everyone's thoughts on a rideshare use fee to help fill some of the rta financial gap?

 

http://www.cleveland.com/cuyahoga-county/index.ssf/2018/02/cuyahoga_county_asked_to_impose_fee_on_uber_and_lyft_ride-sharing_to_help_rta.html#incart_river_mobileshort_home

 

My first instinct is to hate this idea. At first glance it looks like a woeful public entity penalizing a private successful one. 

 

There are loads of external costs to society involved with private transportation though. Congestion, fossil fuel consumption, etc. To me these types of taxes are the best way to fund public transit. In NYC when you drive over the bridges into Manhattan and pay a toll, it goes to transit. Makes perfect sense. Due to overbuilding of road infrastructure, we might not have the congestion problems in Cleveland necessarily so you could make an argument against it there, but fundamentally it's sound.

 

Then how about taxing drivers who aren't using rideshare then?

 

This idea to fund RTA by Uber/Lyft is so unimaginative, and perhaps the idea is simply out there to foster division.

Yeah, I think the better thing in Cleveland would be a commuter tax and/or a parking tax. Rideshare is an improvement over private cars.

Boston report: 60 percent of Uber Lyft riders would not have been in a car otherwise. Results add to research indicating that ride-hail services are adding to congestion in US cities already stifled by traffic, especially in downtown areas...

https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2018/02/05/uber-pulling-boston-commuters-off-transit-and-putting-them-traffic-study-says/m81MOB3tNBlaW19e2zBAMN/story.html

Below is a comment from Amazon fulfillment center developer Seefried Industrial Properties at an event in #CLE this morning. Behind North Randall, Euclid projects. With high unemployment in #Cleveland's urban core, this comment suggests there either weren't large enough, build-ready sites in the core or the public #transportation was inadequate to expand the #labor pool's reach.

 

David Leb‏

@leb_cre

Why two amazon centers in cleveland just 20 miles apart? Comes down to labor. Up to 2500 employees in each center, tough to find enough labor in this market- Adam Goldberg @Bisnow

RTA's final ridership numbers for 2017 are in and they're not pretty. December 2017 ridership was 2.863, meaning annual ridership for 2017 was 39,235,450. That's a new all-time low and the first time it's been under 40 million.

 

 

Below is a comment from Amazon fulfillment center developer Seefried Industrial Properties at an event in #CLE this morning. Behind North Randall, Euclid projects. With high unemployment in #Cleveland's urban core, this comment suggests there either weren't large enough, build-ready sites in the core or the public #transportation was inadequate to expand the #labor pool's reach.

 

David Leb‏

@leb_cre

Why two amazon centers in cleveland just 20 miles apart? Comes down to labor. Up to 2500 employees in each center, tough to find enough labor in this market- Adam Goldberg @Bisnow

 

By "labor" I presume they meant "qualified labor with the ability to actually get to their jobs reliably and on time."  While is a little concerning in that both sites are served by reasonable transit options (#1/39/28/239 and #19/41/others I may not be familiar with respectively).  It could be taken as, quite bluntly, a vote of no confidence in RTA.  I hope that was not the intent.  Not because there might not be some truth to it.  But because Amazon's management consists of sufficiently intelligent and forward-thinking individuals that if they think RTA is a lost cause, then there is a very good chance that they are correct. 

 

What are everyone's thoughts on a rideshare use fee to help fill some of the rta financial gap?

 

http://www.cleveland.com/cuyahoga-county/index.ssf/2018/02/cuyahoga_county_asked_to_impose_fee_on_uber_and_lyft_ride-sharing_to_help_rta.html#incart_river_mobileshort_home

 

Increasingly, at least in more enlightened places, rideshare will fill in the "last mile" connecting increasingly sparse but hopefully higher-frequency bus (edit:) and rail routes with homes and businesses beyond walking distance from those routes, but easily within a very short drive.  RTA should be COOPERATING with rideshare services, not seeking to tax them out of existence. 

 

I think this is a nice idea, but real world, at least in Cleveland, they are just going to use the rideshare for the whole trip. I don't see very many people using rideshare for last mile. Maybe if ourcity was a lot denser and auto traffic was difficult, but its the opposite.  *Second read maybe that's why you used "enlightened places"

 

Well, rideshare can't compete with buses on cost, at least not yet; nor with rail for quick access to any congested places where rail does in fact go.  It makes sense to me to use it for the first/last mile and to use a longer-haul transit route for the rest, IF that route is reasonably convenient, frequent, and reliable.

15-year-old creates map of Cleveland if each Subway restaurant was a subway stop

https://www.news5cleveland.com/news/local-news/cleveland-metro/15-year-old-creates-map-of-cleveland-if-each-subway-restaurant-was-a-subway-stop

"This would totally take you from breakfast at BrewNuts to beverages in Ohio City to a fattening at Mabel's and back again, sans Uber. I support this," one redditor said about the map.

 

Oh my gosh, imagine if we had a public transportation system that could do that! wait a minute...

Green and Blue lines down this morning due to "power outage" at the railyard.  Shuttle buses rolling!

 

Seems to be a recurring problem at that electrical substation.

The GCRTA fare increase is off the table for at least a year. The last fare hike was projected to raise $2.5 million per year. Instead it killed ridership and caused revenues to rise by only $800,000. Details are here:

http://www.riderta.com/news/feb-20-2018-rta-fare-increase-may-be-put-hold-least-year

 

Clevelanders For Public Transit issued its "Fair Fares" plan this morning:

 

Press Release: Riders Present Plan for Improved Public Transit to RTA’s Board of Trustees. It's time to improve transit in Northeast Ohio and stop the death spiral. We need cheaper and convenient transit. Support our #FairFares plan!

 

http://clefortransit.org/2018/02/20/press-release-riders-present-plan-for-improved-public-transit-to-rtas-board-of-trustees/

How do we know it was the fare increase, and not the service cuts?  It's my understanding as well as my experience that the latter are *far* more toxic to ridership than the former. 

Because the service cuts were taken into account by RTA in the revenue expectations from the fare hike.

 

Yeah, but that doesn't mean their projections weren't off for both factors.

Oh, their projections were definitely off. They freely admit that. That's why they're open to outside ideas on how to raise revenue without raising fares. In fact, they are very disappointed with the revenues that they did get from their last fare increase. That pretty much told them that if they raised fares again, all it would do is reduce ridership further and probably not gain a cent in additional revenue.

Yeah, but what I mean is that it's impossible to tell how much of their projections being wrong was due to the service cuts and how much was due to the fare increase.

Yeah, but what I mean is that it's impossible to tell how much of their projections being wrong was due to the service cuts and how much was due to the fare increase.

 

In retrospect, they can measure it and I believe they have.

If the two happened in tandem (correct me if I'm wrong there), then I don't see how that's possible.  Fare increases make the relative cost of driving go down, and service cuts make the relative benefits of driving go up.  Many ex-riders probably stopped riding due to some combination of both factors, not just one or the other.  Did RTA survey riders (or ex-riders) to figure out what factor caused their projections to be wrong?

Personally I'd rather have a fare increase than a service cut.  Perhaps there's a way RTA could raise fares but provide a discount to those with modest incomes.  Although, I assume most of the ridership is lower income.

I agree.  Too many service cuts and it won't matter what the fares are.

The routes that were cut or reduced most recently before 2018 were very light density ridership routes. They saved much more in operating costs than was lost in revenues. What I was told is that the revenues lost from them was negligible.

 

Here are the 2016 service cuts: http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2016/08/rta_fare_hikes_and_route_cuts.html

 

I do agree generally that it's better to raise fares than to cut services EXCEPT if your goal is to cut the budget. The experience from the last round was that RTA is at or near the max fare for what its market will bear. And any further fare increases will not produce much if any revenue. Similarly, RTA is also at the realization that it cannot cut any more routes or it will start cutting into the bones of its system and cause more severe ridership losses. Although this will still save money since fares pay less than 20 percent of the costs of operating the system. So yes, the fewer riders RTA carry, the better its financial performance will be. But making a "profit" isn't the point of providing a public service.

Personally I'd rather have a fare increase than a service cut.  Perhaps there's a way RTA could raise fares but provide a discount to those with modest incomes.  Although, I assume most of the ridership is lower income.

 

I agree, and I could see it being done a few different ways.  (a) Charge significantly more for downtown commuter service, e.g., park & rides.  (b) Bring back express and local service and charge significantly more for the former.  © Provide timed and guaranteed services from even more distant park & rides that specifically divert traffic off the freeways and to the Red Line.  E.g.: pick up in Medina, drop off at Brookpark, but make sure there's a train there or within a few minutes of being there.  Charge appropriately.  And, finally, (d) work with welfare, social services, other sorts of agencies, to provide subsidized RTA passes to those on public assistance.  (MUCH rather pay to get these folks to and from jobs, both for their sakes and my own, than for them to continue to remain unemployed.)

 

I think based on the experience of other cities that good transit service for downtown commuters could be made more profitable (or at least be done at less of a loss) than it is currently, if you charged them *just* less than it would cost to drive, while making it more convenient and reliable than driving.  To do so would require leveraging the Red Line.  But to fail to do might result sooner than people think in there being no more Red Line.  Part of the benefit is that hopefully you reverse the "death spiral" and start to actually capture revenue from middle-class commuters, which you can then use to subsidize transit for those who can't afford to pay enough to recover 100% of operating revenue at the farebox.

 

 

I do agree generally that it's better to raise fares than to cut services EXCEPT if your goal is to cut the budget. The experience from the last round was that RTA is at or near the max fare for what its market will bear.

 

Agreed except that there is not just one market here, but at least two.  (a) The transit-dependent; and (b) middle- to upper-middle-class commuters.  The maximum fare that each market will bear is obviously much greater for the latter than the former.  Perfect world: you try use the latter to subsidize the former. 

And, yes, in some respects I may seem to compromise my libertarian principles in some of these ideas.  But we have to start not where we'd like to be, but where we are, which is the result of 70 years of highway-focused transportation policy.  I'm open to suggestions, from anyone, in how we can get from here to a world in which transit is a viable, sustainable, and attractive option, first of all for those who need it and secondarily, but still importantly, those who have a choice.

There are a lot of things that can/should be done. One that comes to mind is the lack of support from the city. The city subsidizes parking. Muni for example, you can park there for 'free' at the company I work at and the last company I worked for, the same thing. Difference is the previous company gave you the option of a month parking pass at the muni OR $50 a month for RTA. The company I work for now there was no RTA option.

 

Because I moved with quite a few other people from company A to B  I actually got to see the results first hand. About 20% maybe a little more were transit riders, all of them switched upon moving to company B, many didn't want to but spending money on RTA when they pay you not to makes zero sense, unless you don't have a car (my case).

 

They city should not be subsidizing parking and if they do they should require the company getting the subsidy is also offering a similar package for transit.

 

It's just really painful to watch as a transit advocate. We just had someone come in that lives near west side on Detroit. I ended up giving him a 5 ride pass that I had two left on so he could try out the 26 one day. When I talked to him the next day he said that it was great, sooo much better than driving. But . Its free to park at muni. ugh!

Unfortunately, the express buses from the suburbs to downtown are some of the biggest money losers in the RTA system. I don't remember the exact cost per unlinked passenger trip, but I believe it was in the neighborhood of $8 to $10. The National Transit Database doesn't include in its agency summaries the cost per unlinked passenger trip for commuter buses (the official name for rush hour-only freeway express buses). But you can do some analyses on your own using the experiences of Akron and Laketran CB routes in the 2016 Public Transportation Fact Book Appendix B: Operating Statistics & Rankings.

 

The only thing worse are the on-demand/PRT bus services which, for RTA, cost almost $53 per unlinked passenger trip. The core trunk line buses on city streets cost about $5 to $5.50 per unlinked trip (NTB shows $5.71 but that includes commuter buses), whereas heavy rail (Red Line) costs $5.67 and light rail (Blue/Green lines) cost $5.49 per passenger trip. The best is the HealthLine which incurs $1.40 per passenger trip.

 

SOURCE: https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/transit_agency_profile_doc/2016/50015.pdf

Unfortunately, the express buses from the suburbs to downtown are some of the biggest money losers in the RTA system. I don't remember the exact cost per unlinked passenger trip, but I believe it was in the neighborhood of $8 to $10. The National Transit Database doesn't include in its agency summaries the cost per unlinked passenger trip for commuter buses (the official name for rush hour-only freeway express buses). But you can do some analyses on your own using the experiences of Akron and Laketran CB routes in the 2016 Public Transportation Fact Book Appendix B: Operating Statistics & Rankings.

 

The only thing worse are the on-demand/PRT bus services which, for RTA, cost almost $53 per unlinked passenger trip. The core trunk line buses on city streets cost about $5 to $5.50 per unlinked trip (NTB shows $5.71 but that includes commuter buses), whereas heavy rail (Red Line) costs $5.67 and light rail (Blue/Green lines) cost $5.49 per passenger trip. The best is the HealthLine which incurs $1.40 per passenger trip.

 

SOURCE: https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/transit_agency_profile_doc/2016/50015.pdf

 

That is genuinely surprising to me.  But I suspect that a bus stuck in traffic is earning very little money.  What I am thinking is more along the lines of buses to Red Line stations, not all the way downtown; and, as needed, sufficient security that these stations both are, and are perceived as, being safe.  And perhaps the articulated buses which I assume have lower operating costs per seat.

 

I assume these would be much lower cost.

 

Having said all that, I'd have been willing to pay $8-10 for my roundtrip ride on the 239 when I used it to go downtown 10-ish years ago.  The only reason I didn't is that RTA never required me to.  I'm a lot more broke now and could not make my current commute in less than 5x the time it takes to drive.  But when I could have, I would have.  I imagine there are others who both could and would right now.  Enough to matter?  That part I don't know.

 

Express buses in NYC cost $6.50 last time I checked.  Each way, not round trip.

I do agree generally that it's better to raise fares than to cut services EXCEPT if your goal is to cut the budget. The experience from the last round was that RTA is at or near the max fare for what its market will bear.

 

Agreed except that there is not just one market here, but at least two.  (a) The transit-dependent; and (b) middle- to upper-middle-class commuters.  The maximum fare that each market will bear is obviously much greater for the latter than the former.  Perfect world: you try use the latter to subsidize the former. 

 

Aren't the latter "fat cats" that shouldn't be catered to, though?  I still suspect that old mindset exists in the competition free, politics laden world of GCRTA.

 

The Lake County park and rides to downtown appear to be newer and larger buses.  There's a lot near my plant, it usually looks well used and there's a good number of higher end cars.

I do agree generally that it's better to raise fares than to cut services EXCEPT if your goal is to cut the budget. The experience from the last round was that RTA is at or near the max fare for what its market will bear.

 

Agreed except that there is not just one market here, but at least two.  (a) The transit-dependent; and (b) middle- to upper-middle-class commuters.  The maximum fare that each market will bear is obviously much greater for the latter than the former.  Perfect world: you try use the latter to subsidize the former. 

 

Aren't the latter "fat cats" that shouldn't be catered to, though?  I still suspect that old mindset exists in the competition free, politics laden world of GCRTA.

 

The Lake County park and rides to downtown appear to be newer and larger buses.  There's a lot near my plant, it usually looks well used and there's a good number of higher end cars.

 

it's not about not catering to a group.  It's the reality that if service cuts need to be made, then they should be made from areas where people are likely to have cars not from areas where people don't have cars.  It's actually a common sense idea if you think about outside of a partisan mindset.

I've always assumed the suburban park n ride routes were more or less a political necessity, to maintain a suburban constituency. At this point, though, RTA gets so little aid from the state or even county government, I'm not sure how important that is.  If those routes are financial dogs as KJP's numbers suggest they are, they should definitely be on the chopping block. Or at the very least, there should be serious fare increases for peak inbound trips and maybe some creative adjustments for reverse trips to better serve reverse commuters.

The cost of running an express bus on the highways vs. on city streets isn't much different -- except for the utilization of the bus and the driver. The driver is at least 2/3rds of the cost of running that bus. He/she makes perhaps 1 or two round trips in the morning rush hour and 1 or 2 round trips in the afternoon rush hour. Since the bus doesn't make many, if any, en route stops, that's 30-50 passengers riding per bus, or 60-200 passengers a day which that cost structure delivers.

 

A local bus operating on city streets has a driver that works roughly an eight-hour shift, say from 5 a.m. to 1 p.m. In that eight hours, the driver may make up to 10 round trips with people getting on and off that bus all along its route. So while a city bus vehicle seats only 40-50 passengers max, it may carry 50-100 people or more during each trip per direction. In an eight hour shift, that driver and that bus may carry anywhere from 300 to 1,000 people. The utilization of that bus and its driver is MUCH higher for local buses than it is for commuter, rush hour-only buses operating on the highways.

 

Cutting the freeway express buses may be obvious choice. But another, possibly more effective choice is to run them all day long, with greater frequencies at shift change times, and have them make a few strategic en route stops at the top/bottom of exit ramps of roads having connecting bus routes, then get right back on the highways. It would dramatically improve their costs and revenues per unlinked passenger trip, as well as make suburban jobs more accessible to people living in the urban core and inner-ring suburbs.

I've always assumed the suburban park n ride routes were more or less a political necessity, to maintain a suburban constituency. At this point, though, RTA gets so little aid from the state or even county government, I'm not sure how important that is.  If those routes are financial dogs as KJP's numbers suggest they are, they should definitely be on the chopping block. Or at the very least, there should be serious fare increases for peak inbound trips and maybe some creative adjustments for reverse trips to better serve reverse commuters.

 

The irony today is that the stark urban/suburban divide no longer exists.  While separate political entities, there is no clear, obvious demographic or economic distinction anymore between adjacent parts of Cleveland on one hand and Lakewood, Brooklyn, Parma, Garfield Heights, East Cleveland, or Euclid.  Much more of a continuum.  All of these communities have significant transit-dependent populations which they didn't in the past (20-25 years ago), but none of them generates nearly the tax revenue (sales or otherwise) that they did then.  The obvious question we should be asking, but aren't, is this:  is RTA's cost structure sustainable when, even if we did get substantial funding from elsewhere in the county, the county is simply not as affluent anymore, nor as densely populated? 

Google Pay adds support for transit tickets in Las Vegas, more cities coming soon

 

Starting today, Google Pay is gaining support for transit tickets and passes for the Las Vegas Monorail. This means you can now purchase your ticket online, save it to the Google Pay app, and hold your phone near the fare gate to pay. You don’t even need to open the app to make the payment go through.

 

Here’s how to set it up: make sure you’re running the latest version of the Google Pay app, purchase a ticket on the Las Vegas Monorail website, then save it to the app. Then, simply hold your phone near the fare gate where you’d normally swipe your ticket. You’ll see a check mark on your phone, signaling that the transaction when through.

 

https://www.androidauthority.com/google-pay-transit-846866/

 

I think this would be a good idea for RTA to hop on as well. It would be a lot quicker to pick up steam and easier for people to use than the (still to yet arrive) smart card. Mobile payment technology is built in to majority of new phones now and is growing and Google Pay is the standard mobile payment for ALL Android phones. Plus it seems pretty simple to use.

Per user on Reddit, new rail wheels arrived at RTA which could signal the return of 2 car trains?

 

https://imgur.com/576W7R4

 

 

 

Per user on Reddit, new rail wheels arrived at RTA which could signal the return of 2 car trains?

 

https://imgur.com/576W7R4

 

 

 

 

According to the PD, they arrived in mid-February. But they said it would take 16 weeks to replace the wheels on the whole fleet. I've heard that there aren't many 1-car trains running on the line anymore though. http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2018/02/rtas_red_line_runs_some_one-car_trains_for_now_photos.html

It's about time that a tax increase gets discussed. RTA leaders have allowed the system to wither away to half its size/ridership before finally even talking about its funding problem.

 

RTA postpones fare hike, talks tax hike (photos)

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2018/03/rta_postpones_fare_hike_talks.html

I've always assumed the suburban park n ride routes were more or less a political necessity, to maintain a suburban constituency. At this point, though, RTA gets so little aid from the state or even county government, I'm not sure how important that is.  If those routes are financial dogs as KJP's numbers suggest they are, they should definitely be on the chopping block. Or at the very least, there should be serious fare increases for peak inbound trips and maybe some creative adjustments for reverse trips to better serve reverse commuters.

 

The irony today is that the stark urban/suburban divide no longer exists.  While separate political entities, there is no clear, obvious demographic or economic distinction anymore between adjacent parts of Cleveland on one hand and Lakewood, Brooklyn, Parma, Garfield Heights, East Cleveland, or Euclid.  Much more of a continuum.  All of these communities have significant transit-dependent populations which they didn't in the past (20-25 years ago), but none of them generates nearly the tax revenue (sales or otherwise) that they did then.  The obvious question we should be asking, but aren't, is this:  is RTA's cost structure sustainable when, even if we did get substantial funding from elsewhere in the county, the county is simply not as affluent anymore, nor as densely populated? 

 

The irony here is that even when Maple Heights Transit was an autonomous part of RTA (up until 1988 or so), it was by any reasonable definition a transit-friendly community.  The merger was the worst thing to ever happen to mass transit in this area, IMO.

 

The laws that led to the merger also forbade these new federally subsidized entities from competing with private charters.  The various lines used to run specials for Browns games, St. Patricks Day, etc.    Now they can't.

Without the merger, Maple Heights Transit wouldn't exist. Where would their operating subsidy come from? An inner ring community being weakened by sprawl? And where would their capital money come from? The state doesn't fund urban/suburban transit, only rural transit.  And not from the federal government either, because Maple Heights is part of the same shrinking county which is getting funds from a shrinking pot of money held by the feds. All urban transit systems get state-of-good-repair money based on a formula of ridership, population in its service area, and size of system(s). So the larger the system, the more money it gets from the feds. But in a shrinking county like Cuyahoga, the merger slowed the decline and ensured Maple Heights still had some transit.